Burkas, modesty rhetoric and where do we go from here

[bOObOO]

I will be taking sabbatical leave now.  I will most likely return later.

[mgy401]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

[1]Yeah…not animus I am guessing, but frustration for being forced to have a limited life physically and emotionally for arbitrary reasons and worse, to see it happening to one’s children.

[2]The example above of taking over for a woman on maternity leave…there is a biological reason for a woman not being as available for awhile as a new mother and society in general benefits from supporting her because of the impact on the child when they are later adults and contributing to the society as well. 

[3]Is it beneficial to perpetuate arbitrary standards that feed into sexualizing women and girls?

Male hormones are being impacted by cultural standards of sexuality.  Standards that most women and men for that matter have no control over but are forced to live with the consequences of.

I am also extremely disturbed that instead of decreasing sexualization of women and girls as our society is supposedly ‘liberated’, instead I see more and more of sexualizing men and boys. I don’t see it in the church culture yet, but if it continues in the general American culture, I suspect it will eventually show up in American church culture as well unless we consciously resist it.

1.  Animus and frustration are often two sides of the same coin.  I’m sure the folks beating American civilians in Afghanistan right now would also cite “frustration” or “justice”, not “animus”, for their actions.

2.  Hormones are, of course, as “biological” as pregnancy, and the “society benefits from” argument is a slippery one that depends a lot on how society is constructed.  Isn’t society benefitted when we reduce external stimuli that may feed into a young man’s existing hormonal predilections to create harmful thought patterns and reinforce negative neural pathways during the brain’s formative years?  I mean, in other spheres we are only too happy to cater to hormonal young men.  Many of us are supporters of the BLM movement, which seeks to radically change the way we do police work nationwide so as to avoid escalations that push disadvantaged and hormonal young men into violence.

3.  When we talk about standards that sexualize women and girls—the Church’s standards react to social/biological norms about what is considered sexually titillating; the Church’s standards do not create those norms out of thin air.  Sure, openly acknowledging the existence of those norms may tend to reinforce them in a small way.  But ignoring them doesn’t make them go away; and the fact is that most of our society actively caters to them while pretending not to (ever watch Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad or Lost?)—and as Church members, most of us actively participate in and contribute that.

To suggest that males (and especially adolescent males) should completely transcend thousands of years of evolution and get to the point where they won’t be visually attracted to the female form—sisters, I have a nasty secret for you.  It’s not that Mormon guys are the only ones who are tempted to sexualize you.  It’s that all [straight] guys are tempted to sexualize you.  The Mormon guys are just some of the only ones who are making an active effort to resist that temptation, while millions of other guys opt to sit back and enjoy the show.

Women can, of course, choose to help those Mormon guys, or not.  But they shouldn’t pretend they aren’t being objectified either way.  Because they are.  I’m sorry, but they are.  It’s the world we live in.  And frankly, the LDS males who self-styled feminists accuse of “oppression” are some of the only [straight] guys who sincerely want that world to change and are actively working to change it; even as feminists watch movies produced by Harvey Weinstein and swoon over clothing by Alexander Wang and Peter Nygard.

Edited August 20, 2021 by mgy401

[katherine the great]

10 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

I will be taking sabbatical leave now.  I will most likely return later.

 

[mgy401]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

and nobody needs to be a victim of their hormones. PS boys have hormones, girls have hormones, you have hormones, I have hormones, and nobody is responsible for my behavior but me. Not that hot dude with the big muscles in the cubicle near mine, not theAttractive woman in the sensible pants suit in the cubicle near yours,  IMO 

People, of course, can and should learn not to be victims of their hormones.  We can help each other through that process.  Or, we disregard their individual needs and concerns because Muh Rights™, or something. 

I would certainly congratulate you, a (presumptive) female, on mastering the skill of not reacting to visual sexual stimuli (a skill that naturally comes much more easily to most females than to most males; but perhaps you’re an exception).

And of course, “hormonal” issues (and other gender-based physical and cognitive and behavioral differences) can result in other gender-based issues or challenges or ability gaps that are quite unrelated to sexual attraction.  In my experience, quite a few folks of both genders expect gender-based accommodation to one degree or other.

But of course, only my tribe’s idiosyncrasies and weaknesses are deserving of sympathy and accommodation.  

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Naturally to ban me or to support banning me you would rather think of me as one of the bad guys, an agent of Satan, but consider for a moment that you could be wrong and might be banning a good guy, an agent of God. Think about it.

Please consider that I am acting as an agent of God when asking the mod to ban you.  Think about it.

And please consider that I might not actually think what you think I am thinking, that you are an agent of Satan. A privileged, self centered poster unable to see his own behaviours as others see them with an unrealistic and unreasonable view of the world , sure; agent of Satan, no.

Still no answer on why you refuse to follow your own advice and head for the border of MDDB singing “all is well”.  Why am I not surprised.

Apologies for the thread hijack…but the flippant treatment of NotAhab of women, children, men whose lives are at risk went too far for me.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

It’s not that Mormon guys are the only ones who are tempted to sexualize you.  It’s that all [straight] guys are tempted to sexualize you.  

I’ve got news for you. Covering up body parts doesn’t stop that at all. Why do you think women are banned in public in some countries? 

 

The woman in the photo isn’t doing quite enough to help bear their burden is she. I mean look at those feet. 

[mgy401]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’ve got news for you. Covering up body parts doesn’t stop that at all. Why do you think women are banned in public in some countries? 

 

The woman in the photo isn’t doing quite enough to help bear their burden is she. I mean look at those feet. 

Naturally.

But then, my argument isn’t that conservative apparel makes the sexualization stop.  My argument is that conservative apparel makes it easier for the sexualization to stop in the mind of a guy who wants it to stop.  If a woman doesn’t give a flying flip about what’s going on in the guy’s mind . . . well, that’s that, then. 

Out of curiosity—do you think the woman in the picture would be less objectified or less sexualized in the minds of those two gentlemen if she were wearing a tank top and daisy dukes?  And, what do you think these gentlemen wish she were wearing?

Edited August 20, 2021 by mgy401

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Animus and frustration are often two sides of the same coin.

But not always

[MustardSeed]

27 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

People, of course, can and should learn not to be victims of their hormones.  We can help each other through that process.  Or, we disregard their individual needs and concerns because Muh Rights™, or something. 

I would certainly congratulate you, a (presumptive) female, on mastering the skill of not reacting to visual sexual stimuli (a skill that naturally comes much more easily to most females than to most males; but perhaps you’re an exception).

And of course, “hormonal” issues (and other gender-based physical and cognitive and behavioral differences) can result in other gender-based issues or challenges or ability gaps that are quite unrelated to sexual attraction.  In my experience, quite a few folks of both genders expect gender-based accommodation to one degree or other.

But of course, only my tribe’s idiosyncrasies and weaknesses are deserving of sympathy and accommodation.  

Remember the topic, being burqas etc- 

we probably think more alike that otherwise.  My experience of being a woman in the church is that we are shamed based on inches of skin showing, and taught from the pulpit that we are to protect our virginal status at all cost by covering our knees and shoulders.  
 

I promise that left to our own judgement we would likely as LDS women chose to dress in an appropriate manner just as MOST women tend to do, IMO.  I can’t get on board with putting me in charge of a mans thoughts.  I can admit to myself however if I’m “attempting to”manipulate another persons thoughts and feelings by my appearance, how that is wrong on my part.  I believe “that” should be the conversation for both men and women.
 

question: should men should stop going to the gym to lift weights? It’s a major turn on for lots of women IMO.  

Edited August 20, 2021 by MustardSeed

[mgy401]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

But not always

It’s like porn—I know it when I see it.  And of course no one wants to be walking porn.  

[Raingirl]

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Granted, teenaged boys tend to be hypersensitive; but the idea that a teenager boy is going to be as aroused by—say—a paperclip, as by an attractive woman in yoga pants and a sports bra, is just plain silly.

And the above seems to show a lot of animus towards people who are, arguably, victims of their own hormones.  It’s not like teenaged males are the only people who ever demonstrate hormonally-based antisocial behaviors.

They’re only “victims” of their own hormones if they choose to be. I’m tired of the whole men are just that way, they can’t help themselves trope. It’s a bunch of hogwash that men cling to in order to justify the choices they make. They could do better if they wanted to. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Naturally.

But then, my argument isn’t that conservative apparel makes the sexualization stop.  My argument is that conservative apparel makes it easier for the sexualization to stop in the mind of a guy who wants it to stop.  If a woman doesn’t give a flying flip about what’s going on in the guy’s mind . . . well, that’s that, then. 
 

Men will be sexually attracted to people (let’s not forget that some men are very visually turned on by other men) they are attracted to period. It’s biology. No amount of anything can stop that. Trying to stop that is unhealthy. Best to accept that, own that, and embrace it. What a guy does with that though is entirely up to him. 
 

There is a saying in psychology that what we resist persists. Meaning by denying the feelings themselves they have an outsized place in our brain. Men (and women) need to be taught how to handle the emotions they feel. By acknowledging them, we can let them go. Trying to address the problem by controlling others just doesn’t work because there is no bright line between shorts to the knee and a cloth bag from head to toe. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201606/you-only-get-more-what-you-resist-why

20 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Out of curiosity—do you think the woman in the picture would be less objectified or less sexualized in the minds of those two gentlemen if she were wearing a tank top and daisy dukes?  And, what do you think these gentlemen wish she were wearing?

How do you manage to go to the beach!? 

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

They’re only “victims” of their own hormones if they choose to be. I’m tired of the whole men are just that way, they can’t help themselves trope. It’s a bunch of hogwash that men cling to in order to justify the choices they make. They could do better if they wanted to. 

We are here in this world in part to gain control of the natural man. 
 

And God always provides a way, does he not?
 

Edited August 21, 2021 by Calm

[mgy401]

10 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Remember the topic, being burqas etc- 

we probably think more alike that otherwise.  My experience of being a woman in the church is that we are shamed based on inches of skin showing, and taught from the pulpit that we are to protect our virginal status at all cost by covering our knees and shoulders.  
 

I promise that left to our own judgement we would likely as LDS women chose to dress in an appropriate manner just as MOST women tend to do, IMO.  I can’t get on board with putting me in charge of a mans thoughts.  I can admit to myself however if I’m “attempting to”manipulate another persons thoughts and feelings by my appearance, how that is wrong on my part.  I believe “that” should be the conversation for both men and women.
 

question: should men should stop going to the gym to lift weights? It’s a major turn on for lots of women IMO.
 

I’m not sure burqas per se are as relevant to this discussion as the means by which they are enforced, frankly.  

To me it seems like there are three facets at play in these sorts of discussions:  a) whether standards should exist at all, and b) if so, how those standards ought to be taught, and c) whether/how those standards ought to be enforced. 

I’ve sort of gotten the vibe that your answer to a) had been “no”, but then your most recent post makes me question whether I’ve interpreted you correctly; so apologies if I haven’t.  On b), I guess my position is that the teaching should be less of a thundering “COVER UP, THOU VILE TEMPTRESS!!” and more of a casual “By the way—sister, if it’s not too much trouble, can you help your brother out?” in the middle of teaching a more holistic idea of “modesty”that presents the concept as primarily being a contributing and self-effacing member of a larger community working towards a common goal that is bigger than any one of us.   On c)—I’m not by any means “woke”, but I’ll acknowledge that the idea of males enforcing standards (ie, imposing discipline) on females for the way they dress, sort of churns my stomach a bit.  I’d like to think that most guys have better things to do with their time anyways.  

And in the spirit of modesty, self-effacement, and sacrifice for the greater good—you ladies can have the gym, and I’ll content myself with the couch and a bag of chips.  I’m generous like that.  

[mgy401]

13 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

They’re only “victims” of their own hormones if they choose to be. I’m tired of the whole men are just that way, they can’t help themselves trope. It’s a bunch of hogwash that men cling to in order to justify the choices they make. They could do better if they wanted to. 

As I said above:

 

People, of course, can and should learn not to be victims of their hormones.  We can help each other through that process.  Or, we disregard their individual needs and concerns because Muh Rights™, or something.

In any community—including a Church one—we are free to say “look, bucko, that’s YOUR cross to bear, not mine.”

The flip side is that when we find ourselves grappling with some sort of physical or spiritual ailment—someone may say the exact same thing to us.  

[Calm]

On 8/20/2021 at 5:58 PM, mgy401 said:

I’ll content myself with the couch and a bag of chips.  I

When I see or think of chips, I get cravings. My health is highly impacted by cravings because my sleep disorder plays havoc with blood sugars at times,  food can act as a natural sedative for me and several other intricacies of interaction of food with my mental and physical health I won’t get into as TMI.

Please out of compassion for my weakness, stop eating chips, stop referring to them, and throw any you might have away in case I accidentally encounter them.  
 

Then we can move on to getting rid of restaurant advertising and the restaurants themselves. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Calm

[Raingirl]

12 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

As I said above:

 

People, of course, can and should learn not to be victims of their hormones.  We can help each other through that process.  Or, we disregard their individual needs and concerns because Muh Rights™, or something.

In any community—including a Church one—we are free to say “look, bucko, that’s YOUR cross to bear, not mine.”

The flip side is that when we find ourselves grappling with some sort of physical or spiritual ailment—someone may say the exact same thing to us.  

You’re missing the point. 
 

Regardless of how women dress or how they behave, men are not the helpless beings you like to think they are.  Men  -or women - may have an initial thought or feeling of attraction. But what they choose to do with that momentary thought or action is completely within their control. No one else is responsible for that. 
 
Men cling desperately to this notion that they just can’t help who they are - because they’re a MAN. What are you guys so afraid of? This ridiculousness has got to stop. 

[mgy401]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

[1]Men will be sexually attracted to people (let’s not forget that some men are very visually turned on by other men) they are attracted to period. It’s biology. No amount of anything can stop that. Trying to stop that is unhealthy. Best to accept that, own that, and embrace it. What a guy does with that though is entirely up to him. 
 

There is a saying in psychology that what we resist persists. Meaning by denying the feelings themselves they have an outsized place in our brain. Men (and women) need to be taught how to handle the emotions they feel. By acknowledging them, we can let them go. Trying to address the problem by controlling others just doesn’t work because there is no bright line between shorts to the knee and a cloth bag from head to toe. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201606/you-only-get-more-what-you-resist-why

[2]How do you manage to go to the beach!? 

1.  It’s interesting, what you say comes awfully close to to confirming what I said to Calm:

It’s not that Mormon guys are the only ones who are tempted to sexualize [women].  It’s that all (straight) guys are tempted to sexualize [women].  The Mormon guys are just some of the only ones who are making an active effort to resist that temptation, while millions of other guys opt to sit back and enjoy the show.

Let’s be honest here.  You know as well as I do that most western guys outside the Church—outside conservative Christianity, anyways—aren’t trying to handle their emotions at all; they’re trying to indulge them.  They don’t control their libido, they just spend it until it’s exhausted (and then they pop some Viagra and spend some more).

As for the rest of us:  Certainly, we need to go about learning self-discipline in a healthy way.  On the other hand, people on diets are rarely counseled to surround themselves with junk food; and I can’t think of a mental health professional who would recommend a recovering alcoholic take a job in a bar.  It’s not that he’s such a snowflake that he must never, ever be in incidental proximity to his vice; it’s just that—he knows he has an issue, he’s working through it, and why surround himself with extra temptation?  And if I know the alcoholic, and I love him as a brother, and he’s coming over to my place to hang out—it doesn’t cost me anything to make sure the booze is put away. 

2.  By learning to handle the emotions I feel.    (Doesn’t everyone?)  Naturally, that process took some time.  

[mgy401]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

When I see or think of chips, I get cravings. My health is highly impacted by cravings because my sleep disorder plays havoc with blood sugars at times,  food can act as a natural sedative for me and several other intricacies of interaction of food with my mental and physical health I won’t get into as TMI.

Please out of compassion for my weakness, stop eating chips, stop referring to them, and throw any you might have away in case I accidentally encounter them.  
 

Then we can move in to getting rid of restaurant advertising and the restaurant themselves. 

Sure, Calm.  You’re my sister (right?  Apologies if I’ve misgendered you)  in the gospel, and if you’re coming to my place I’ll gladly put the potato-cuttings away and serve a meal in accordance with your dietary needs.  

24 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

You’re missing the point. 
 

Regardless of how women dress or how they behave, men are not the helpless beings you like to think they are.  Men  -or women - may have an initial thought or feeling of attraction. But what they choose to do with that momentary thought or action is completely within their control. No one else is responsible for that. 
 
Men cling desperately to this notion that they just can’t help who they are - because they’re a MAN. What are you guys so afraid of? This ridiculousness has got to stop. 

I fear you are similarly missing my point.  Men can (and should) be expected to control it.  Boys are undergoing a learning process.  

It’s always amusing when I see a female tell a male how he’s supposed to handle an excess of testosterone, or suggest that an adolescent boy can simply “switch off” a lustful thought and not have it recur thirty seconds later.  How about you, a female, don’t make assumptions about how a teenaged boy should able to handle lust; and I, a male, won’t make assumptions about how a first-time mother should be able to handle postpartum depression; and we’ll all just trust that people are doing the best they can and commit to helping them out any (reasonable) way we know how?  

 

Edited August 21, 2021 by mgy401

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

On the other hand, people on diets are rarely counseled to surround themselves with junk food; and I can’t think of a mental health professional who would recommend a recovering alcoholic take a job in a bar.

But who would counsel them to tell others to stop selling the junk food or boycott bars until they get shut down?

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

you’re coming to my place I’ll gladly put the potato-cuttings away and serve a meal in accordance with your dietary needs

But women and girls are not just being told to temporarily wear cap sleeves and one piece suits. They are being told to make it their own lifestyle. 
 

In essence, it would be as if I was telling you what to stock in your food pantry and refrigerator in case I came over whether I ever did or not. 

Edited August 21, 2021 by Calm

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Sure, Calm.  You’re my sister in the gospel, and if you’re coming to my place I’ll gladly put the potato-cuttings away and serve a meal in accordance with your dietary needs.  

I fear you are similarly missing my point.  Men can (and should) be expected to control it.  Boys are undergoing a learning process.  

It’s always amusing when I see a female tell a male how he’s supposed to handle an excess of testosterone, or suggest that an adolescent boy can simply “switch off” a lustful and not have it recur thirty seconds later.  

 

I haven't seen a single person say this, imply it or even come close to implying it on this thread.

3 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

How about you, a female, don’t make assumptions about how a teenaged boy should able to handle lust; and I, a male, won’t make assumptions about how a first-time mother should be able to handle postpartum depression; and we’ll all just trust that people are doing the best they can and help them out any way we know how?  

 

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Nice dismissal of a real problem. "I know a woman" should always be used by men to trump the woman's pain who is standing in front of you.

I know her well. She was quite confident and joyous in her decisions on this particular point, her pain for her daughters on other, unrelated points notwithstanding.

[mgy401]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

But who would counsel them to tell others to stop selling the junk food or boycott bars until they get shut down?

What Church-related behavior are you analogizing this to?  (I might actually agree with you, but would like to be sure we’re on the same page!)

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

But women and girls are not just being told to temporarily wear cap sleeves and one piece suits. They are being told to make it their own lifestyle. 

That seems odd to me.  I mean, what one does when no one else is around, seems to have little bearing on “modesty” under any definition of the word.

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

I haven't seen a single person say this, imply it or even come close to implying it on this thread.

Hmm.  That was my takeaway from your statement that “Men  -or women - may have an initial thought or feeling of attraction. But what they choose to do with that momentary thought or action is completely within their control. No one else is responsible for that.”

That seemed an awful lot like you, a female,  making assumptions about how males should be able to handle lust.  Happy to be corrected, if I misinterpreted you.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

They’re only “victims” of their own hormones if they choose to be. I’m tired of the whole men are just that way, they can’t help themselves trope. It’s a bunch of hogwash that men cling to in order to justify the choices they make. They could do better if they wanted to. 

We are just that way but we can control our reactions to it. Teenage boys don’t know how at first but they can adapt. I also am convinced that the male only leadership is sometimes ignorant that girls experience similar reactions.

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

It’s like porn—I know it when I see it.  And of course no one wants to be walking porn.  

Depends on the situation. I don’t go to the gym primarily to be of more help when families move in and out of the ward.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

we probably think more alike that otherwise.  My experience of being a woman in the church is that we are shamed based on inches of skin showing, and taught from the pulpit that we are to protect our virginal status at all cost by covering our knees and shoulders.  

And it is weird and dehumanizing. Most of us have been in situations where we try to tailor our actions to elicit or discourage a certain response in people we are with. Being told you are not supposed to elicit a response from guys that you on some level want to trigger to be attractive but not too much and that you are responsible for what they think whether you meant them to or not just sounds EXHAUSTING!